Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Halpern v Canada (AG), [2003] O.J. No. 2268 is a June 10, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in which the Court found that the common law definition of marriage, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, [1] [2] sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, more uxorio or marriage by habit and repute, is a marriage that results from the parties' agreement to consider themselves married, followed by cohabitation, rather than through a statutorily defined process.
The Court rejected this definition by applying the living tree doctrine used in the famous Persons case, analogizing the exclusion of women from the common law definition of "persons" to that of same-sex couples. The interveners had argued that the meaning of marriage is fixed into convention beyond the reach of the constitution as its old ...
In 2001, the majority of Canadian marriages (76.4%) were religious, with the remainder (23.6%) being performed by non-clergy. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada nationally since 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories.
The law covers the following subjects relating to marriage and common-law marriage in the province of Ontario: Part I—Family Property (sections 4–16) Part II—Matrimonial Home (sections 17–28) Part III—Support Obligations (sections 29–49) Part IV—Domestic Contracts (sections 51–60)
The measure asks voters to change the California Constitution to enshrine a "fundamental right to marry" and remove language that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
A common law marriage doesn't involve a marriage license, but it's treated similarly to a traditional marriage in states that recognize this sort of union. Partners in a common law marriage, have ...
For example, a Canadian citizen, legally married in the Netherlands to his or her same-sex Dutch partner, could not sponsor his or her Dutch partner for immigration as a spouse, despite the fact that both Dutch law and Canadian law made no distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriages, and despite the fact that IRCC did ...